Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

StarTalk Radio

Bill Nye Takeover

with Casey Dreyer

Published October 28, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Bill Nye guest hosts StarTalk with Chuck Nice to interview space policy expert Casey Dreyer about severe proposed cuts to NASA's budget, especially its science programs. They explain what NASA science includes, why Earth observation and planetary exploration matter, how Mars Sample Return could answer the question of life beyond Earth, and how politics, international competition, and commercial space intersect with long-term scientific goals. The episode closes with concrete ways listeners can advocate for NASA science through the Planetary Society.

Topics Covered

Space policy NASA budget Mars Sample Return Science communication Climate change projections U.S.-China competition Nonprofit organizations U.S. politics and elections SpaceX and rocketry Observational astronomy

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • Proposed cuts would reduce NASA's budget by about 25%, the largest single-year reduction in its history, with roughly half of those cuts aimed at science programs.
  • NASA science includes Earth observation satellites, space telescopes, Mars rovers, and deep-space probes that collectively monitor climate, explore other worlds, and expand fundamental knowledge.
  • Earth science at NASA, which underpins long-term climate and carbon monitoring, is targeted for cuts of more than half, jeopardizing decades-long data records.
  • A rock analyzed by the Perseverance rover on Mars contains patterns and organics that on Earth would almost certainly be interpreted as biosignatures, and the sample is now cached in a tube on Mars.
  • The White House budget proposal canceled Mars Sample Return, despite its potential to answer whether life ever existed on Mars and its value as a technical pathfinder for future human missions.
  • Adding humans to planetary missions has never made them cheaper or faster and introduces contamination risks that can compromise the search for indigenous life.
  • Commercial space companies excel at profitable activities like communications and Earth imaging but have not funded pure science missions, which rely on public investment.
  • China and other space powers are planning or flying missions that closely mirror U.S. science missions now slated for cancellation, meaning the U.S. risks ceding leadership and partnerships.
  • Large human spaceflight programs like Artemis survive because they are politically constructed to be geographically broad and bipartisan, even if they are technically or financially inefficient.
  • Citizens can influence NASA's future by contacting their representatives and participating in Planetary Society advocacy efforts that provide district-level economic data and organized visits to Congress.

Podcast Notes

Introduction and framing of NASA budget crisis

Bill Nye guest hosts StarTalk

Neil deGrasse Tyson opens the show and then Bill Nye takes over the hosting role, with Chuck Nice as co-host[1:15]
Bill jokes by imitating Neil and Chuck reacts to his impression[2:02]

Shift to discussing practical space exploration and funding

Bill says they will talk about how we explore space practically, focusing on funding space exploration[2:16]
He notes this is a remarkable time in NASA history because people want to cut the science budget by about half[2:31]

Bill's connection to the Planetary Society and introduction of Casey Dreyer

Bill explains that Neil once served on the board of the Planetary Society and voted in favor of Bill becoming CEO about 15 years ago[2:56]
He says the Planetary Society has since developed a strong and reliable policy arm[3:06]
Bill introduces Casey Dreyer as someone he considers among the world's foremost authorities on NASA budgets and budget policy[3:17]
Chuck jokes that policy experts are causing "pandemonium" as Casey is welcomed[3:26]

Scale and impact of proposed NASA budget cuts

Magnitude of the cuts relative to NASA history

Casey states that the situation is "real bad" with NASA proposed to be cut by 25%[3:56]
He describes this as the largest single cut ever in NASA's history[3:56]
Bill asks how this compares to the ramp-down after Apollo, and Casey says those reductions per year were smaller than the current proposal[4:14]
Bill summarizes that the proposed contraction is greater than the post-Apollo contraction, like "falling off a cliff" while trying to start a new moon program[4:20]

Disproportionate impact on science within NASA

Casey explains that half of the proposed cut is directed at science[4:40]
Bill distinguishes between human spaceflight and scientific exploration, and Casey agrees that NASA science is everything motivated by science that does not have humans in space[5:00]
Casey lists examples of NASA science: space telescopes like Hubble, Mars rovers, the New Horizons probe beyond Pluto, and Earth observation satellites[5:06]
Bill emphasizes that these missions are "all the stuff we love" and notes that Earth observation is even more important in some ways[5:16]

Earth science, climate monitoring, and political resistance

Definition and importance of Earth science at NASA

Casey says the proposal would cut Earth science by more than half[5:30]
He defines Earth science missions as spacecraft placed in space and pointed back at Earth[5:06]
• These missions monitor water distribution, gravity anomalies, weather, large-scale climate, and carbon levels
• They help us understand how our dynamic planet evolves and how the Earth system works
Chuck comments that this sounds "a little important" and Casey agrees it is very relevant to most people[5:56]

Studying Earth to understand life in the cosmos

Bill notes that big scientific questions include "Where do we come from?" and "Are we alone in the cosmos?"[6:07]
He stresses that Earth is the only known example of a planet with life, so studying Earth is essential to compare with other worlds[6:18]
Bill frames Earth science as crucial for understanding what it takes to have living things anywhere[6:09]

Origins and evolution of NASA Earth science

Casey notes that expanded NASA Earth observation, initially called "Mission to Planet Earth," began in the late Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations[6:49]
He points out the irony that this expansion started under two Republican presidents[6:56]
Casey explains that Earth science was not originally NASA's primary focus, even though NASA's founding act included observing phenomena in Earth's atmosphere and space[7:14]
• He notes that the 1958 NASA Act, passed in response to Sputnik, listed observing atmospheric phenomena as a statutory responsibility
Over about 40 years, NASA has built continuous data sets on various Earth indicators, which are critical to detecting long-term cycles and deviations[8:02]
• Continuous monitoring lets scientists track temperature, carbon, and other key indicators of planetary health
Bill notes that NASA's name includes aeronautics, implying an interest in the atmosphere and air[8:32]

Climate change, fossil fuels, and motives to defund monitoring

Bill speculates that long-term atmospheric data will inevitably reveal that burning fossil fuels harms the planet[9:02]
He hypothesizes that if someone is paid by a fossil fuel industry, they might want to eliminate such information by defunding monitoring[9:02]
Casey responds that if you cannot monitor the state of the planet, it becomes harder to track impacts and changes[9:31]
He is cautious about asserting a direct one-to-one motive but acknowledges there is a deeper political aspect to the cuts[9:42]
Casey adds that, ironically, Earth science is not even the most-cut area; astrophysics takes an even bigger hit[9:54]

What NASA science costs and why it matters to the public

Casey Dreyer's role and tools for analyzing NASA budgets

Bill notes that Casey works for him at the Planetary Society and has used software and artificial intelligence to study NASA budgets[10:33]
Casey identifies himself as Chief of Space Policy for the Planetary Society and host of the Space Policy Edition of Planetary Radio[10:42]
Bill states that StarTalk listeners will ultimately be interested in NASA's budget because NASA is the largest space organization in its hemisphere[11:08]

Contextualizing NASA spending within the U.S. federal budget

Casey says most U.S. federal spending goes to health care, national defense, and social support programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid[12:16]
He explains that NASA is less than half a percent of federal spending, and about a third of NASA's budget goes to science[11:06]
• He estimates that NASA science is about 0.1% of every tax dollar, describing it as "fractional pennies"
Casey compares NASA science spending to U.S. pet food spending, saying the country spends more on pet food than on scientific space missions[11:08]
Bill and Casey argue that the U.S. can afford to fund NASA science alongside other priorities, yet there is a movement to cut even this small amount[12:16]

Philosophical and practical reasons for space exploration

In response to the claim that space money could be better used elsewhere, Casey stresses practical benefits such as understanding climate, Earth's uniqueness, and planetary processes[18:31]
He notes that by comparing Earth with Venus and Mars we see extremes like runaway greenhouse warming and different planetary evolutions[18:43]
• Casey mentions that the modern idea of global warming on Earth was spurred by observations of Venus's runaway greenhouse effect
He says our limited imaginations make it necessary to look outward; surprises like dark energy force us to update our models of reality[19:26]
Casey frames a deeper question: do we want a society that looks forward and engages with new discoveries, or one that just hunches over phones scrolling social media?[19:51]

Potential biosignature on Mars and the Mars Sample Return debate

Discovery of a promising potential biosignature by Perseverance

Bill mentions a newly published paper on a rock studied by the Perseverance rover[20:28]
Casey describes the rock as containing "leopard spots"-patterns and organic carbon compounds that on Earth are always made by biological systems like bacteria[21:03]
• He notes that if this rock had been found on Earth, scientists would conclude bacteria made the structures, with no obvious alternative explanation
He explains they cannot yet fully declare it biological because there are unlikely but possible abiotic mechanisms that have not been definitively ruled out[21:24]
Casey points out that this exact rock is now cached in a tube on Mars and could be brought back to Earth for more conclusive testing with large, expensive equipment[21:39]

Cancellation of Mars Sample Return in the White House budget

Casey states that the White House budget canceled the effort to return the cached samples, despite their scientific promise[21:51]
He mentions that one justification given is that humans will eventually pick up the samples themselves, so a robotic mission is seen as unnecessary by some[22:04]

Surveyor 3 anecdote and contamination concerns

Bill recounts Surveyor 3, an unmanned spacecraft sent to the Moon before Apollo to test landing conditions[22:24]
• Apollo 12 astronauts later landed near Surveyor 3, walked over, and brought back pieces of its camera assembly
Initial reports suggested microbes had survived for two years on the Moon, but it was later found that contamination occurred on Earth after return[23:11]
Bill says his fear is that sending humans to Mars will similarly contaminate the environment, making it impossible to distinguish indigenous life from what astronauts bring accidentally[23:25]
Casey notes that every astronaut spacesuit leaks and that humans are "walking bags of bacteria and viruses"[23:57]
• He contrasts this with robotic missions, which are baked at high temperatures or treated with acid to greatly reduce microbial contamination

Technical and cost challenges of Mars Sample Return

Bill cites a last budget estimate of about $11 billion for Mars Sample Return, and Casey agrees cost was one factor in controversy[26:07]
Casey outlines the mission: landing near Perseverance, transferring tubes onto a rocket that must survive two years on Mars, launching into Mars orbit, then autonomously rendezvousing with an orbiter and returning to Earth without contamination[26:53]
• He emphasizes the need for launch windows roughly every two years to travel between Earth and Mars
Casey calls Mars Sample Return "incredibly difficult" but notes much of the needed technology overlaps with what will be required for eventual human Mars missions[27:17]

Spillover benefits and existential significance

In response to Chuck, Casey compares extreme missions to triathlons or Formula 1: pushing limits improves manufacturing, engineering precision, and human capability[27:39]
He highlights autonomy-robots knowing how to do things-as a key area with broad relevance[28:09]
Bill and Casey agree that the fundamental reason to bring Mars rocks home is to answer the life question, which Bill says would change life on this world if life were found elsewhere[28:45]
Chuck raises the idea that proof of extraterrestrial life could unsettle people whose origin stories conflict with it[28:37]
Bill notes that some planetary scientists and engineers doubt that Mars Sample Return is the best use of resources, underscoring internal debate even among experts[29:41]
Casey describes the National Academies' decadal process, where scientists argue for about 18 months to prioritize the biggest questions and recommended missions[30:29]
• He says because science measures an objective reality, consensus about the biggest unknowns eventually emerges, such as questions about life on Europa or dark energy
He notes Mars Sample Return has been a long-term priority, but its many justifications make it harder to communicate a single compelling reason[31:45]
Casey states that returning Mars samples before sending humans would allow us to evaluate hypotheses like life starting on Mars and seeding Earth, before contamination complicates the record[31:45]

International competition and limits of commercial space for science

China's parallel Mars Sample Return and broader science ambitions

Bill points out that the China National Space Administration is planning missions that are almost one-for-one analogues to U.S. missions, including a Mars Sample Return mission[31:45]
Chuck imagines people saying "so what" if China beats the U.S. and questions the real impact of losing space hegemony[32:28]
Casey replies that beyond competition, space science symbolizes what a nation chooses to do that is peaceful, cooperative, and ambitious[32:28]
He says space science requires working together in teams and with allies and embodies wild optimism about tackling hard questions like "what's on that red dot in the sky"[33:40]

Commercial space vs. public funding of science

Bill notes that unlike Apollo-era government programs, today there are many commercial companies competing to do space-related work[33:06]
Casey says commercial providers are excellent at launching things cheaply, providing internet and communications, and doing Earth observation where markets exist[33:06]
He argues there is no market for questions like "how does Jupiter work" or "what is dark matter" or "is there life on Mars"[34:05]
Casey notes that despite many private space firms and billionaires, none has yet built a pure science mission with their own money[33:40]
He attributes this to incentives: private companies have investors and must seek financial return, making unprofitable fundamental science a poor fit[34:12]

History of science funding, public vs. private, and the need for ongoing support

Pre-World War II private patronage of astronomy

Casey explains that before World War II, the U.S. government barely funded science; research was largely a private-sector responsibility[35:14]
He says wealthy individuals funded large ground-based telescopes, leading to a "prestige race" among benefactors whose names now grace observatories like Yerkes, Keck, and Lowell[35:40]
He notes these donors often built the hardware, cut the ribbon, claimed they were benefiting humanity, and then failed to fund ongoing operations or scientific work[35:46]

Postwar shift to public science funding and its rationale

Casey says the U.S. only began serious public funding of science after World War II, when scientific advances like the nuclear bomb and rockets proved decisive[35:14]
He credits Vannevar Bush's report to Franklin Roosevelt for framing science as "the endless frontier" crucial to public health, national defense, and industry[49:21]
He notes the National Science Foundation was created in 1950 and that within one lifetime the U.S. went from barely funding science to winning most Nobel Prizes[48:59]
Bill cites Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, stating Congress is to promote the progress of science and useful arts[49:30]
Casey stresses that building a spacecraft is not enough; governments must fund scientists to analyze the data, or missions become meaningless[37:06]
• He likens a data-less mission to a telescope no one looks through or makes sketches from, similar to a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear

Current U.S. space policy process, Artemis, and the consequences of cuts

How scientific priorities are being undercut by the White House proposal

Casey notes that until the recent White House cuts, scientists were operating under a relatively stable process of prioritizing missions based on the biggest questions[42:48]
He lists frontier questions: where we come from, whether we are alone, how life arose, how the solar system formed, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy[43:20]
He says China's scientific program is ramping up to answer the same questions, driven partly by national pride[43:28]

Evidence of deliberate intent to cut NASA science deeply

Casey calls the President's Budget Request for NASA "extraordinarily low" and "needlessly destructive"[47:49]
He rejects the idea that the low request is a bargaining tactic, noting that the budget office head had previously published a report advocating a 50% cut to NASA science[48:19]
He interprets this as a deeper animosity toward federal investment in science that ignores its substantial benefits[48:47]

Legislative mechanics: budget requests and appropriations

Casey explains the President's Budget Request (PBR) sets the baseline for debate on next year's NASA spending[46:06]
He describes how the House and Senate each write appropriations bills in response, vote on them, reconcile differences, and then send a unified bill for the president's signature[46:10]
He jokes that this process is a "spherical cow" of legislation-an idealized model that rarely matches messy reality[46:36]
Casey notes that, unexpectedly, both the House and Senate-each controlled by the same party as the president-have responded more favorably to NASA science than the White House did[45:44]

Why Casey sees the cuts as "unstrategic" and an "anti-strategy"

Casey argues the cuts destroy the U.S. fundamental research base, from student training to international alliances, and push partners toward more reliable countries[48:45]
He connects the cuts to a broader attack on universities and academia, undermining engines of discovery and economic growth[49:57]
He says human spaceflight efforts like returning to the Moon and going to Mars also require stable political coalitions, which the cuts erode instead of strengthen[49:57]
Casey notes Artemis is the first moon program to survive a presidential transition, starting under the first Trump administration and continuing unchanged under Biden[50:40]
He labels the current proposal an "anti-strategy" because it dismantles a popular, coalition-backed science program without building a new coalition for the ambitious human exploration goals it claims to pursue[50:46]

Space Launch System (SLS), Artemis, and politics vs. efficiency

Bill recalls the cancelled Constellation program and its Ares rocket, which turned out to be a problematic all-solid design[51:13]
Casey clarifies that the Orion capsule in Artemis traces back to earlier plans, but the Space Launch System rocket is a different, later-mandated design[51:33]
He explains SLS was written into law in 2010, requiring NASA to build it using shuttle components so that jobs in certain states-like Utah for solid rocket boosters-would persist[51:24]
Casey contrasts SLS's roughly $4 billion per launch and at-most annual cadence with SpaceX's high launch rate, emphasizing that political stability rather than efficiency drives SLS's survival[52:58]
He notes that when the Trump administration tried to cancel SLS, Senator Ted Cruz and others wrote language into another bill to guarantee SLS funding for years, effectively making it a protected jobs program[53:12]
Casey argues that in a representative democracy, programs that spread money and jobs geographically tend to be more politically durable, even if they are technically inefficient[52:26]

Citizen advocacy through the Planetary Society and why engagement matters

Power of constituents to influence NASA funding

Chuck emphasizes that elected officials work for citizens and that telling them not to decimate NASA can have real impact[53:50]
Casey says the Planetary Society runs a nonpartisan grassroots campaign where people email, write letters, and visit Congress to advocate for NASA science[53:48]
He notes that Congress has broadly agreed with their position on many issues, showing space science can remain political but nonpartisan[55:05]

Tools the Planetary Society provides advocates

Casey describes the "Save NASA Science" campaign at planetary.org, which has generated hundreds of thousands of responses and support from many organizations and scientists[54:57]
He explains that over 200 people join Planetary Society visits to Washington, D.C., taking time off work to meet with their representatives and staffers[55:03]
Bill says visiting Congress is rewarding: people walk the halls, meet their lawmakers, and see how young some staffers are[55:05]
Casey notes they pre-generate district- and state-level data showing NASA's economic and scientific impacts, so advocates can walk into offices with specific numbers[55:33]
• He mentions dashboards.planetary.org and state/district impact pages that quantify jobs and spending related to NASA science
Bill points out there are 435 congressional districts and 50 states, and advocates can print and present these impact numbers to make NASA relevant locally[56:15]

Advocacy as antidote to cynicism and path to the sublime

Casey says engaging in advocacy is an antidote to cynicism because participants see that their passion can be heard without hitting partisan walls[55:57]
He notes that he and the Planetary Society do not personally profit from missions; their only "gain" is the joy of images and knowledge returned[57:01]
He describes this enrichment as access to the sublime in a secular world, contrasting it with endless social media scrolling[57:13]
Casey says that by pursuing discoveries waiting on Mars, Europa, and elsewhere, and by acting to support them, we make ourselves better[57:48]

Historical perspective, unexpected benefits of space science, and closing

Founding of the Planetary Society and the value of not knowing

Bill recounts that the Planetary Society was founded by Carl Sagan, Lou Friedman, and Bruce Murray[57:17]
He notes Bruce Murray directed JPL during the Viking Mars landers and the Voyager missions, including the Golden Record now beyond the heliopause[58:12]
Bill recalls Bruce Murray being asked why they build spacecraft and what they will find, and Bruce answering that they do not know what they'll find-that is why they build them[58:10]

How past space science transformed everyday life

Bill shares that all four of his grandparents, born in the 19th century, did not know about neutrons, relativity, mobile phones, or Pluto[58:16]
He emphasizes that modern mobile phones depend on both special and general relativity, as well as space-based technology like GPS, which grew from space science and telescopes[59:02]
He notes Pluto was unknown when his grandparents were born and jokes about its current planet status[58:42]

Final call to action and thematic wrap-up

Bill asks again what an individual can do in light of budget worries and international competition[59:20]
Casey reiterates that people can visit planetary.org, join the Save NASA Science campaign, contact Congress, and sign up for the Space Advocate newsletter and Space Policy Edition podcast[59:26]
Bill notes that many StarTalk episodes discuss cosmology and astrophysics, but this one has focused on the practical work needed to support NASA science so those discoveries can continue[59:26]
He closes by tying this support to answering the two deep questions: where did we come from and are we alone, and ends with "Keep looking up"[59:23]

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

Small, stable investments in fundamental science can produce enormous long-term benefits, but they require protection from short-term political swings and deliberate de-funding efforts.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What long-term benefits am I currently enjoying (like GPS or mobile communications) that came from investments people made decades before I was born?
  • • How could I support at least one institution or project in my life that may not pay off immediately but has the potential for outsized future impact?
  • • What concrete step can I take this month-such as writing a representative or donating to a science nonprofit-to help safeguard long-horizon projects I care about?
2

Ambitious, high-difficulty goals (like Mars Sample Return) act as forcing functions that sharpen skills, push technology forward, and reveal new possibilities that wouldn't emerge from easier, incremental tasks.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in my work or personal life am I staying in the realm of easy, incremental improvements instead of setting a goal that truly stretches my capabilities?
  • • How might choosing one "moonshot" project this year change the way I allocate my time, learn new skills, or build teams?
  • • What specific challenging objective could I commit to over the next 12-24 months that, even if partially achieved, would dramatically raise my technical or creative ceiling?
3

Markets rarely fund pure knowledge-seeking on their own; when incentives don't naturally reward discovery, public institutions and citizen advocacy become essential to make that work possible.

Reflection Questions:

  • • In the domains I care about, which crucial tasks or questions are unlikely to be addressed by profit-driven actors alone?
  • • How could I adjust my expectations so I don't assume "the market" will automatically solve problems that actually require public or collective action?
  • • What is one public good (scientific, cultural, or civic) I could start supporting more actively through my voice, vote, or volunteer time?
4

Enduring large-scale projects need broad, cross-partisan coalitions built on diverse motivations, not just technical elegance or cost-efficiency.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When I advocate for a project or idea, do I frame it only in terms that appeal to people like me, or do I consider the different values and incentives of other stakeholders?
  • • How might building a broader coalition-rather than optimizing for purity or perfection-change the odds that my most important initiatives survive leadership or priority shifts?
  • • What is one current project where I could intentionally recruit allies with different backgrounds or motives to strengthen its resilience?
5

Actively engaging in the political process, even in small ways, is a powerful antidote to cynicism and a practical route to shaping the future rather than just commenting on it.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When was the last time I directly contacted an elected representative or participated in a civic process instead of just discussing politics with friends or online?
  • • How might taking one concrete civic action-writing a letter, attending a meeting, or joining an advocacy day-change my sense of agency about large-scale issues I care about?
  • • What specific issue or cause motivates me enough that I'm willing to invest a few hours in the coming month to influence its outcome?

Episode Summary - Notes by Blake

Bill Nye Takeover
0:00 0:00